Table of Contents
MSD I: Readiness to move to Build & Test
Self CritiqueOur team's self critique for MSD 1 can be found here.
Project Related Issues
- Issues that have been addressed
- Molding method decision (compression,injection,
- The issue of choosing the molding method for the project proved difficult because of higher costs associated with extrusion molding parts and feasibility of PET plastic for injection molding. Compression molding proved the most feasible from our research and feasibility calculations.
- Method of melting plastic
- There was research needed to calculate the energy needed to melt the plastic and decisions to choose the components capable of providing this heating energy. Electrical resistance heating rods were chosen for this purpose.
- Method of compression
- The equipment selected needed to be able to supply the required compression forces to complete the compression molding economically. We decided on a common car jack for this purpose.
- Strength of the frame.
- The strength of the frame and support for the components needed to be considered due to the forces exerted by the compression system. We concluded that hollow square steel tubing with proper bracing was sufficient for the frame.
- Shape and material selection of mold, mold
- The material selected for the mold needed to be strong enough to withstand the forces and elevated temperatures.
- Electronic controls
- The electrical component selection was important for our system in order to sufficiently monitor and control the temperature in the mold.
- Project budget increase
- The raw materials required for the molding components proved to be more expensive than we originally thought. We have submitted budget increase requests through MSD.
- Molding method decision (compression,injection, extrusion)
- Issues that have not been addressed
- Mounting methods of removable pieces
- This issue is the result of needing some pieces that should be easily replaceable in the event of component failure.
- Insulation of system
- Proper insulation to help with the efficiency and time to melt the plastic is an issue.
- Safety of using the device
- The safety of using the molding equipment has not been sufficiently analyzed.
- End product testing
- The test plans with our final product now being a flat plastic sheet need to be formulated.
- Product removal from mold
- The method of removing the product from the mold needs to be analyzed.
- Design of mold
- The design of the mold has continuously had to change to adapt with our melting and molding process. With limited knowledge on how to design a mold, the turn around time to create a full mold design took longer than expected.
- Mounting methods of removable pieces
- Issues with no solution or clear
path identified (Red)
- Heating and cooling capabilities of mold
- The heating time of the mold to melt the plastic and the cooling time to be able to remove the product without deformation have conflicting requirements.
- Attachment of heating elements to mold
- The attachments between the mold and compression system or frame need to be designed for easy removal of the mold.
- Heating and cooling capabilities of mold
Scope changes (original vs. current)
- Open ended project to turn plastic chips into a home
- Compression molding system to create a flat sheet of PET plastic that can be vacuum formed later
- Low cost machinery to be implemented in El Sauce,
- The current compression molding design requires a good amount of raw materials mostly consisting of metal, so the equipment cost is higher.
- Make improvements to the plastic shredder made by a
- There were no clear and simple improvements that would be feasible within our team's time on the project.
- Material costs can be astronomical
- Not all requirements can be met when constrained
- We will not deliver into the final customer, rather open leeway for another project team to finalize the process
- Transfer molding is not an easy concept to implement at a low cost
- Consult exerts more frequently through the design phase
- Take concepts back to the experts for review
- Put more effort into researching and claiming resources early on in the process
- Communication lines are vital for effective team functionality
- Scheduling technical tasks is a team effort
- Do not assume properties of materials
- Test system as early and effectively as possible
Team Member Status & Planning Improvements
Individually, we delivered on the majority of our personal responsibilities. The 3-week plans in addition to the project plan were effective in designating specific tasks to each team member.
This project plan changed over time as new tasks were created. Planning specific dates and deadlines were something we lacked in planning during this phase. These dates would help create a sense of urgency in completing tasks faster.
A working Risk Assessment file can be found here.
Lowered Importance & eliminated
- R5 - Unable to fill the mold with the flowing melted plastic
- R7 - The manufacturing process creates inconsistent parts
- R10 - Manufacturing start up cost is too expensive for implementation in Nicaragua
- R12 - Unable to test our machine in conditions common in Nicaragua
- R25 - No one to work the bottle recycling business in Nicaragua
- R29 - Production rate of machine is too low to be economically viable in Nicaragua
- R30 - Gutters will not be able to be attached to homes
- R31 - Gutters will not be able to attach to themselves
- R4 - The mold will be too complex to machine and/or have melted plastic flow in to
- R6 - The mold may deform or break during usage
- R32 - Improper heat distribution prevents the chips from fully melting
Form the risk management, we learned that the total risk may be low early on in the project timeline, but as subsystems and the overall design are solidified, new risks arise that were not previously obvious.
MSD II schedule
|Phase 5 Team Vision|
MSD II: Project close-outThe notes from the MSD 2 Gate Review can be foundhere.
- Use this space to organize information for your review. Key elements are listed here
- All team members present and prepared to report on team and individual status.
- All team MSD deliverables are complete and uploaded, and ready to be graded.
- Guide is present and prepared to evaluate all items included in the review.
- Review should take about an hour.
Status ReviewCurrent state of the project
- Summarize actual performance vs. requirements
(include snapshot of current requirements document here,
along with a link to the live document.).
- Which requirements were unmet, and why?
- How robust is your final design?
- Did you meet your project budget?
- What was your customer's assessment of the work you delivered to them? Were they satisfied?
- Compare your current project plan/schedule to your
- Did the scope of your project change during MSD II?
- How and why did your schedule change during MSD II?
- What have you learned from these changes that you can apply to future projects?
- Review individual team member status.
- Did you deliver on your personal responsibilities?
- Did you use your MSD II plan effectively? Was it realistic? If not already addressed above, what did you learn from this and how can you apply it to future projects?
- Review your current risk assessment and problem
- Have you closed out your most important risks?
- Were there risks that you did not anticipate? If so, what do you think the reason is?
- Did any anticipated risks manifest themselves as problems?
- How did you use your problem solving process during the semester?
Deliverables Checklist and Website Status
- All documents must be uploaded to your website in advance of the Gate Review.
- The team should not use gate review time to conduct a detailed examination of specific deliverables unless related to discussion items in the status review.
- Is prototype hand-off complete, is the team's workspace cleaned up, and have all tools been returned?
Lessons learned, etc.
- Does the team have any other lessons learned that were not addressed above?
- What advice would you give to future teams?